1 - Smt. Anita Shaha W/o Late Gopal Shaha Aged About 34 Years R/o v. 46, Pankhajur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Singarbhat Kanker, District North
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2069 of 2019 1 - Smt. Anita Shaha W/o Late Gopal Shaha Aged About 34 Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward No. 01, P. V. 46, Pankhajur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Singarbhat Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ......Claimants. 2 - Minor Arjeeta Shaha D/o Late Gopal Shaha Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Anita Shaha (Appellant No. 1), R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward No. 01, P. V. 46, Pankhajur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Singarbhat Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Sneha Shaha D/o Late Gopal Shaha Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Anita Shaha (Appellant No. 1), R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward No. 01, P. V. 46, Pankhajur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Singarbhat Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Suraj Shaha S/o Late Gopal Shaha Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Anita Shaha (Appellant No. 1), R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward No. 01, P. V. 46, Pankhajur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Singarbhat Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
5 - Smt. Anjali Shaha W/o Late Manmath Shaha Aged About 68 Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward No. 01, P. V. 46, Pankhajur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Singarbhat Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2 6 - Haran Shaha S/o Late Manpath Shaha Aged About 34 Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward No. 01, P. V. 46, Pankhajur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Singarbhat Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Govind Sarkar S/o Ravindra Sarkar Aged About 54 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Bande, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ........Driver. 2 - Uttam Banik S/o Pradeep Banik Aged About 41 Years R/o Bande Bazar Main Road Bande, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ........Owner. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Near Adarsh Bal Mandire, Main Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ........Insurer. ... Respondents For Appellants For Res. Nos. 1 & 2 : None despite service For Res. No. 3 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board 11/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed by the claimants as they are aggrieved by the award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (for short, the Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 42 of 2019. 2. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs 9,70,900/- in favour of the appellants/claimants as compensation on 3 account of death of deceased- Gopal Shaha, who met with an unfortunate road accident on 15.12.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No. CG04-DN/0331 which was driven by respondent No.1/driver. The said vehicle is owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No.3 / insurance company. 3. The appellants / claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs 46,00,000/-. As per pleadings in the claim application, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years and was running a sweet shop and was earning Rs. 25,000/-per month. The appellants/claimants, who are the wife, children, mother and brother of the deceased, were totally dependent upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the above said compensation was claimed. 4. Respondent No.1/driver and respondent No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle resisted the claim application on various grounds and Respondent No.3 / insurance company took a plea that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. 5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded aforestated compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was running a sweet shop and registration certificate of the said shop, obtained from the government, is also placed on 4 record, therefore, the monthly income of Rs. 6500/- taken by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and it requires to be enhanced. Apart from the income assessed by the learned Tribunal, the amount awarded with respect to the other heads such as filial consortium etc are also on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company 8. 9. supports the order impugned and would submit that neither any documentary evidence with respect to the income earned from the sweet shop nor any document such as income tax return etc. has been placed on record by the appellants/claimants, therefore, monthly income of Rs. 6,500/- is based on proper appreciation of the evidence, which needs no interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. From perusal of the record and evidence, it appears that the deceased was running a sweet shop and a certification of registration of the said shop was obtained by the Government (Ex. P/ 17), which is placed on record, therefore, it can be safely gathered that deceased had a sweet shop. However, any other document with respect to income generated from any other source other than sweet shop is not available on record. One widow, four minor children and aged mother were found to be dependent upon the income of deceased by the learned Tribunal. Thus, taking into consideration evidence available on record; minimum wages; age of the deceased; nature of job and number of dependents, this Court 5 can safely assess that in order to raise a family of five and six persons, a person must have earned Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, in light of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court proposes to re-compute the compensation in the following manner - Monthly income of the Rs.10,000/- deceased Future prospects 25% Rs.12500/- (10,000 + 2500) Yearly income (12500x12) Rs.150000/- 1/4th deduction for personal expenses (Rs.150000/- - 37500/-) Multiplier of 14, as applied by the Claims Tribunal (112500 X 14) Spousal Consortium + Funeral expenses + loss of Estate Rs.112500/- Rs.15,75,000/- +Rs.70,000/- Filial Consortium +Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each to appellant No.2 to 5) TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.18,05000/- 10.The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,70900/- which is deducted 6 from the total compensation now awarded and thus, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.8,34,100/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 11.11.2019 to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days. After the amount of compensation is deposited by respondent No.3/insurance company, learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order for apportionment, investment and disbursement. 11. Appeal thus allowed in part as indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.24 19:03:55 +0530